Supreme Court Oral Arguments [24-1056] Rico v. United States
Nov 3, 2025
Mr. Unikowski, appellate counsel for Isabel Rico, debates the interpretation of the Sentencing Reform Act, arguing that absconding from supervised release should not trigger the fugitive-tolling doctrine. Mr. Handel, representing the government, asserts that fugitives cannot be considered under supervision. The discussion dives into the rehabilitative nature of supervised release and the implications of late-detected violations, highlighting concerns about establishing a common-law fugitive doctrine and the statutory intent behind supervised release regulations.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Statute Favors Revocation Over Tolling
- The Sentencing Reform Act's text and history suggest revocation, not fugitive tolling, addresses absconding from supervised release.
- That creates a two-track scheme: parole with statutory tolling and supervised release without it.
Violation Implies Ongoing Sentence
- If a supervisee violates conditions while absconding, that implies they were serving the supervised-release sentence during that period.
- Revocation can then rewind credit and impose a new sentence rather than 'toll' the term indefinitely.
Revocation Imposes Fresh, Forward-Looking Sentences
- Supervised release revocation imposes a new sentence and often discards any 'time served' rather than crediting past supervised time.
- The revocation judge evaluates current needs and can impose imprisonment plus a new supervised-release term.